Henry Fernandez secures suspended sentence in Class A drugs trafficking case

The Case

The Defendant was jointly charged alongside her partner with possession with intent to supply cocaine. A large quantity of drugs, with a street value of approximately £20,000, was seized from a caravan where she and her partner resided. Further seized was a mobile telephone, which was attributed to the Defendant and contained text messages indicative of drugs supply.

Henry scrutinised the evidence and took detailed instructions from the Defendant. The client entered a basis of plea, which was thorough and carefully considered. The Defendant stated that she had become involved in the enterprise because her partner, a drugs user, owed a large debt to an Organised Crime Group (‘OCG’). He was threatened and told that he had to sell drugs for them. The OCG committed several acts of violence and property damage, until he succumbed. The Crown did not challenge that these were the circumstances in which the Defendants became involved.

Joint Enterprise

The Defendant accepted that she received orders for drugs on her mobile telephone. She stated that she passed these on to her partner, who would then physically deliver the drugs. This was not challenged by the Crown. However, the Crown’s case was that the Defendants were running a joint enterprise. Furthermore, that the Defendant would dispatch her partner to deliver the drugs. Conversely, the Defendant’s basis was that she acted under the direction of her partner. He dictated her responses to drugs orders and then arranged his delivery through her. She did not want to use the device and never advertised it as a drugs line. However, if she did not comply, her partner would physically assault her and remind her of the threats of the OCG. In short, she was acting for him; not the other way around.

Detailed submissions prepared by Henry Fernandez

This was not accepted by the Crown. They submitted that the Defendant’s active role in organising drugs sales was characteristic of a significant role. Henry prepared detailed written submissions in response. He argued that, on either version of events, the case fell into lesser role and, therefore, that a Newton Hearing was unnecessary. Henry submitted that, even if the Defendant played an operational role, she only did so because of the pressure and intimidation of the OCG, over whom she had no influence. Furthermore, Henry submitted that other characteristics of lesser role were present on either version of events; for example, the Defendant received no financial advantage, which ought to outweigh those characteristics of significant role which were present on the Crown’s case.

As the Defendant was selling directly to users, the case fell into category three harm. A significant role and category three harm case yields a starting point of four years and six months’ custody, with a range of three years and six months’ custody to seven years’ custody. A lesser role and category three harm case yields a starting point of three years’ custody, with a range of two years’ custody to four years and six months’ custody.

The Court was persuaded that the disagreement between the Defendant and the Crown did not make a material difference to sentence. Accordingly, she was sentenced on the assumption that her version of events was correct. In passing sentence, the Court remarked that the Defendant had performed a limited administrative function, acting as a ‘receptionist’, and that her partner was responsible for carrying out the rest of the enterprise. Furthermore, the Court held that the Defendant acted under direction and considerable pressure, both from the OCG and her partner. Relatedly, the Court held that the Defendant was not involved for her own gain.

Henry made further detailed submissions in mitigation; highlighting the age of the offence, that the Defendant was of previous good character and had not committed any further offences since, and that immediate custody would result in significant harmful impact upon her young children, for whom she was now the sole carer.

The sentencing

The Court was persuaded to step back from immediate custody and imposed a sentence of eighteen months’ imprisonment suspended for twelve months, with twenty rehabilitation activity requirement days.

Henry Fernandez is meticulous in his case preparation, persuasive advocacy, and an unwavering commitment to securing the best possible outcome for the client—even in the most complex and sensitive of cases. Contact the Clerks to instruct Henry